Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
I think my frustration with D&D is that I have trouble getting people to play 13th Age even though it's a better game.

I mean obviously it being a better game is not a universal opinion but I keep seeing people trying to hack 5e for a play style 13th Age seems better suited for but they flat out refuse to try it because "not D&D".

I've also played 13th Age with people who basically admit it's superior at the table, but then want to go back to D&D anyway because what they really want is to feel a part of the wider gaming community and get excited over new product releases and I don't know how smaller games can really compete with that.
I make a character for that once, never got to play. No idea how it works in play. *shrugs*
But yeah, that's t he thing see--everyone knows 5E, and so play it. Because youtube and such tells them too.
 
OK how about the dumbass stickers on a ladder then? Hey dumbass don't think its safe to stand on the top step of a ladder and sway. you will fall. that will not feel good.
Look if they didn't want me to stand on the last step they shouldn't have made the last step. They should have just made the second last step the last step, which... wait hold on...
 
I think my frustration with D&D is that I have trouble getting people to play 13th Age even though it's a better game.
Speaking as a referee who ran GURPS campaigns in rural NW PA for two decades, sell the setting and the circumstances of the campaign. Not the system. You will get people who are willing to play.

For me, it was something like

I have been running a fantasy campaign since 1980 called the Majestic Wilderlands. It's based on some old Judges Guild stuff and you make the character you want with the system I used. You are not just a thief but a member of the Brotherhood of the Lion, or you are a member of the Beggar's Guild who do a lot of smuggling and blackmail. You seen Conan right? Hawk the Slayer? Excalibur? Robin of Sherwood? Read Lord of the RIng? Thieves Worlds? Somewhere I got something like that and it doesn't matter what the group decides to play. I can make it work with GURPS somewhere in the Wilderlands.

So they would think about it and come up with a nuanced situation for their characters. Often was pleasantly surprised that I am able to handle GURPS and that I had something in my notes about the Majestic Wilderlands that was relevant.

We would do character generation and I would run a session that was just about a combat encounter to get them used to the system. Also to gauge whether the campaign will work out. I have the ability to coach effectively (my parents were sports coaches) so often that was enough to get things going.

Hope this helps with your next 13th Age campaign.
 
Right? Lol. Thankfully, I’ve brow beated my group into accepting SW, and currently am enjoying a campaign of Savage Pathfinder.

Which is miles better than any d20 variant imo.
Yeah, basically every single non-D&D game I've had in the last 25 years has been me running it. Pretty much resigned myself to having to run all the other systems if I want to see something other than 3-6 D&D characters fighting 1-12 D&D monsters for half the session.

I read that as bestiality at first
Well if you need to hybridize and you can't do actual gene splicing...
 
Speaking as a referee who ran GURPS campaigns in rural NW PA for two decades, sell the setting and the circumstances of the campaign. Not the system. You will get people who are willing to play.

For me, it was something like



So they would think about it and come up with a nuanced situation for their characters. Often was pleasantly surprised that I am able to handle GURPS and that I had something in my notes about the Majestic Wilderlands that was relevant.

We would do character generation and I would run a session that was just about a combat encounter to get them used to the system. Also to gauge whether the campaign will work out. I have the ability to coach effectively (my parents were sports coaches) so often that was enough to get things going.

Hope this helps with your next 13th Age campaign.
I just don't run D&D. Then people have to play something else so long as I'm gming so that's not an issue.

I'm just reluctant to flat out refuse to play D&D whenever someone else wants to GM because it feels like a dick move given I'm mostly the GM. (But I'm getting to that point).
 
In some ways, I kind of find it funny. There's so much online angst about every change made to any edition of D&D, but I've played with so many people over the years and none of us ever managed to give two shits about most of it.

A friend of mine is running a 5E Greyhawk game. He picked 5E because we're all familiar with it and we've all got DnDBeyond subscriptions and I'm doing campaign sharing so everyone has access to the full suite of character options. But since it's Greyhawk, he said only elves (and half-elves), dwarves, humans and halflings for races, since stuff like Tieflings would be killed on sight (Iuz kinda poisoned that well) and he didn't want to work in dragonborn and so on. And no warlocks for obvious reasons.

So we created a bunch of characters and we're playing a very old-school feeling game, using 5E. We're using milestone advancement, and we've leveled up pretty slowly (we're at 3rd now), but it's mostly the choice of adventures and monsters that contribute the most to making it have the feel of early AD&D campaigns.

But I've seen people online who would argue that it's literally impossible that the game we're playing could possibly resemble old school games, or that we don't know what old school is, or whatever. I just wish people would spend less time complaining and more time actually, you know, trying it out.

And I'm not just talking about playing 5E here. I'm talking about making some simple choices to bring about the game you want, regardless of the rules edition you use.

It's why I love to read robertsconley robertsconley 's posts about his campaigns. He's tried a bunch of stuff, kept what works for him and his players, tossed what didn't work, and focused on having a good time in the game.

This corresponds to my experience.

I'm running a 5e Greyhawk campaign as well (currently using a modified version of the ToEE). I've found DnD Beyond helpful for character maintenance.

I'm using Gygax's version of the setting (1983 box set) and only character options that make sense for it (so no tieflings, dragonborn, etc.).

And as mentioned earlier, I don't use inspiration or feats.

Does it feel exactly like 1e AD&D? No, certainly not. But it's not that far off in terms of the actual player experience.
 
1) Backwards compatible is good (something T&T has had throughout its life)
2) The virtual tabletop looks fun - hopefully you wont have to acquire the mini's other than if you have the digital version of the appropriate book
3) The playtest package/feedback process gives people a chance to say what they don't like - and they did act on feedback from the D&D next process
4) Making the art depictions more diverse is a good thing IMO
5) I will evaluate what I actually need to get, given the 5.5e ness of the product
6) This was inevitable
 
Arldings are dumb, and I’m not sure why they are needed when we already have Aasimar. Everything else on my first skim through seems… fine.

I like the half-kin ancestry thing. The idea of playing a human-dwarf, or Tolkien forbid, an elf-dwarf hybrid seems neat.
Maybe Ardlings are the thing to incite the rage reaction, so they can then remove them and say - 'see we responded to fan input'

Or people like anthropomorphic animal characters... those people :smile:
 
That's better than I thought, but it's still kind of a kludge. Why not spend just say you get to pick two skills and a piece of equipment rather than making a long, space-wasting list of backgrounds that frequently break?
Stimulating the imagination with examples is why not.
 
Have now read the playtest document - seems fine to me, though I do miss the perks from background - I really liked those.

To answer Baulderstone more fully, the playtest rules do let you mix and match to create a unique background of your own choosing if you prefer.
 
Have now read the playtest document - seems fine to me, though I do miss the perks from background - I really liked those.

Yeah, backgrounds feel a lot less flavourful now, although more flexible. The perks were a bit of mixed bag though, some worked really well in play, some felt really difficult to integrate, some felt like weaksauce. Still, they meant Backgrounds were much more distinct and I think they could have been polished into something smoother and better.

Really the +2/+1 ability scores thing was obviously their intended route from recent releases, and moving it from Race to Background is a purely cosmetic change. It seems like things like the Dwarves' tremorsense are supposed to give races their flavour instead of ability score changes.

I'm not keen on the apparent return of feat trees implied by feats having levels and pre-requisites. I know some people loved them, but I really disliked the way 3rd ed became all about constructing optimised "builds"; IME, it just detracts from flexibility and fun at the table. I also hope when we see them they'll have revamped the stat changes on "half"-feats to make them more flexible. Being effectively blocked from a feat because you already have Strength (say) of 20 doesn't feel good.

The arrival of physical/digital bundling sounds good, although it's going to be brutal for 3rd party VTTs - Roll20, in particular.
 
They have approximately 16 backgrounds across 6 pages.

If they took out all the extraneous fluff (do you need a description of what a scholar, noble or soldier is?) you could fit them all in a 16 line table.
 
The arrival of physical/digital bundling sounds good, although it's going to be brutal for 3rd party VTTs - Roll20, in particular.
This seems like a bad thing for the hobby in general.
 
I was reading through the comments thinking "New edition, everyone hates/likes/is indifferent to it as usual" then:

"When I got to the part about her putting the coffee between her legs to add cream"

spray.gif


Anyway.

I predict the following reactions from the various forums I frequent...

Enworld: "WAR!"

RPGnet: "BAN, BAN, BAN, BAN, INFRACTION and don't come back, BAN, BAN, BAN..." etc

RPGpub: "We don't care. Mythras, Geese and SWO are our thing."

RPGSite: "Trump saw this coming! I'll die before WOTC get my money! Are they introducing a new stat for hurt feelings and +1 if you have blue hair?"

Dragonsfoot: "I still play D&D the way Gary wrote it. If Gary didn't write it, it doesn't exist."

Trollbridge: "Ah hey, they put a new D&D out." "Ha! We're on version 8! Oh wait, is it 9? Has anyone figured out how Missile weapons work yet?"

Mythweavers, Unseen Servant and other PbP sites: "New D&D version games: 2467. All other games: 3 (and two of those are D&D 5e)"

We've seen this before, we'll see it again. Unless WoTC has a 4e style misstep they'll pander to what sells and right now that's to the kids, not cranky old neckbeards. We still have every old version of the game. And Mythras, hopefully with the new "Geese of SWO" sourcebook, which should (like everything else) be out before Far West.
 
This seems like a bad thing for the hobby in general.

It's going to increase the barrier/gulf between the experience of playing D&D and playing other games, yes. Instead of firing up Roll20 and seeing so many other games offered on the same platform, you'll be in a D&D only environment by default. And if you do go to other online platforms the drop in quality is going to be quite noticeable (but do you actually want 3d online tabletops? I don't think I do).

Mind you, what proportion of the hobby is played through VTTs anyway? The last couple of years have obviously increased the proportion but I'd assume most people are returning to the tabletop anyway (for what it's worth, I only play VTT right now because I play with people in different countries and cities but I still prefer playing tabletop).
 
Aaah I can’t help myself. The representation a whole lawsuit was grossly irresponsible fuckup by the media.
Not really - the media was doing exactly what the folk paying them wanted them to do, eg. mock the idea of consumer rights and megacorps having obligations against them.
There is EN worlds Level-up product which is sort of that.

It basically struck me as an attempt to basic respond to all of the most common forum criticisms of 5e.

(Although upon reading it kind of struck me as an illustration of the problems of giving people what they want. ie. it fixed the perceived issues rather than the real issues.)
Same as 4e... heck, same as 5e, too, which was heavily changed due to forum feedback and is a much blander game as a result.
 
I am very curious about what they’re going to do with the Warlock class.

I’m guessing that since they’re reducing the spell lists, some iconic Warlock spells will become class traits (eg Eldritch Blast). They’ll also probably have more player-controlled patron concepts (at a certain point the Warlock is indistinguishable from a Cleric, Druid or even Paladin).

I also have a feeling that they’re ditching short rests and making most class abilities prof bonus / day. That seems tidy enough.

But since Feats are no longer optional, the Fighter is likely going to change. Just more feats? Or something else? Hopefully not just more spells (“martial” spells).
 
It makes the Lorraine Williams era at TSR look dirty and decadent.
:shade: :coffee: It does, doesn't it? Such sexy, naughty, bad, nasty hate for D&D it produced the most fondly remembered setting explosion. Mmm, yes I'd love a Spelljammer under a Dark Sun while in your Ravenloft, my Lady Pain. Don't mind the Birthright halflings, they're always watching from the shadows. :storm: :skeleton: :storm:
 
I just don't run D&D. Then people have to play something else so long as I'm gming so that's not an issue.
I am not sure what you mean. I am pointing out that if you have trouble with getting a 13th Age campaign going. Sell the setting that you are using with 13th Age instead, and still use 13th Age to run it. Explain that 13th Age is the system you are using to make it come alive. That is what I did with GURPS in my neck of the woods. Got them excited about playing the Majestic Wilderlands, explained that I was using GURPS to give them access to all the options character have in that setting, then sealed the deal by running the first session with a smoothly run example combat.

The one group that didn't work with is because a hobbyist tried to run GURPS for them and screwed the pooch royally and the consensus was that it was a terrible session with a terrible system. Even the good reputation I had, I couldn't salvage the situation. But other than that I used this technique many times over the past 30 years to get GURPS campaigns going.
 
I am not sure what you mean. I am pointing out that if you have trouble with getting a 13th Age campaign going...
Yes. I know you were. I don't have trouble running what I want, nor did I suggest I did.
 
That change to backgrounds does seem better than the current model. I can't remember the specifics as I haven't played 5E in a few years, but I didn't like backgrounds usually being redundant with the most closely-related background. If I recall, taking the Solider background gave you proficiencies that you got from being a Fighter. Taking Street Urchin was redundant with being a Rogue.

Sometimes you just want to play the most obvious archetype, and 5E punished you for it.

Anyway, my hope is that Hasbro is moving towards D&D away into the videogame space, and leaving the tabletop gaming scene to RPG companies.
:goof: Ackshually... by RAW that was a strength because the redundancy turned those Background bonuses into wild cards, allowing you to select an additional skill/tool/lang that you'd normally not get easy access to. So e.g. double athletics gave you athletics plus a wild card Skill choice. Double vehicle (land) gave you vehicle (land) and a wild card Tool choice. Fighter Soldier was not penalized but got an actual strength in flexibility.

That said, like A LOT in 5e it was buried in its own subsection, chapter and verse, and easily overlooked from quickplay. And in that 5e is more from CCG lineages where you have to cross reference interactions to see where unexpected benefits can occur. That... isn't for everyone, but very WotC.
(And then there was Custom Backgrounds so you could create your own cherry-picked mishmash and avoid the issue entirely in AL. :brokenheart: ALas...)
 
I wonder if people misunderstood how backgrounds worked because they just found it hard to believe that such a lot of rules text was used to spell out what basically amounted to...and now choose any two skills that fit your character concept.

It boggled my mind when I first realised it (and furthermore when I realised additional backgrounds were something they were actually adding to new books as a selling point).
 
Looks like Pathfinder 2e sales will skyrocket in 2024.

I predict the OSR will explode like never before. Everyone who was more or less satisfied with 5e when it came out, but not willing to go deeper into "2021 values" will be looking elsewhere. Some will gravitate towards whatever Pathfinder is doing, but a large segment will discover the OSR empire built parallel to 5e's rise and fall.
 
Well, because it's more than Skills, it's also Tools and Languages. And depending on how players are -- metagaming, metagaming, metagaming! -- it could easily whitewash the setting into a meaningless tabula rasa. Take the suspected strong stuff, ignore the rest. That kinda cheapens setting for me.

It's basically a way for GMs to flavor their world -- these things exist, these other things don't -- and make redundancies a strength, not a penalty. If you simply do not care as a GM, group, table, then there's an option to blow it off and just read it as extra freeform widgets. But I never found wholesale freeform skill selection worked well in my D&D because Skill-Based RPGs and Level-Based RPGs are strong in their respective ways. A meandering middle path took the worst of both worlds IMO.

Part of the fun of Level-Based RPGs for me is quick-roll-up, play-with-what-you-got. The synergy turning a redundancy from a penalty to a benefit was just clever Skill-Based mastery dash of spice. Any more and it overwhelms.

It was a happy compromise that pleased everyone in not completely satisfactory ways. Yet it was flexible for each table to take it as their own for their desired strengths. And in that it is a success in the Compromise Edition in my eyes. (Yes, at my table we are playing Backgrounds way more strictly because Setting. When I want more Skill-Based modulating fun we'll play another system, maybe in the same setting, maybe not.)
 
D&D 4e did. :shade: Is it a portent of things to come? :devil: Mwa ha ha ha!
(Yes, that was deliberately redundant, because I still love you! :heart: )
I remember the 4e magazine ads that were all "playing RPGs in front of a computer is anti-social and LAME-OOO" and now it's all "play online! Use our online gaming platform! THAT's what we call social and hip!"

My irony meter has EXPLODED.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynocephaly widely spread idea

probably to make them less aligned with a modern representation of angels. Also balls of eyes with wings would be fun to play, but I feel like they wouldn’t sell except for the most jaded among us.
They sold for me in In Nomine. :shade: :coffee: So yes, the most jaded among us. :angel: Wanna play a Domination (divine ever-changing cloud of eyes & mouths & other forms) of possessed kudzu spreading peace and harmony across Atlanta, Georgia? You'll rarely have your PC wait in traffic!
 
After watching the One D&D, and reading this thread, I'd like to share my viewpoints.

I certainly got a feel, after the video, of this "we did such a great job letting you all help us with 'D&D Next,' that we're at it again with 'One D&D!'" mindset. I think that subtle marketing tool is important for people (and particularly people who, for whatever reason, feel like their opinions or place in society is in a minority) to put their feedback into the game and make it more for them. I think the video also has a (not so?) subtle 4e marketing vibe of "this last edition is good...but now you need to dump it and play this much better game. So end those campaigns with a bang, everyone!" I guess they kind of have to do this, because if they didn't there would be no hype. I'm sure the hype translates into sales.

Admittedly, I bailed on AD&D after 1st edition. 5e actually got me back. So far I like a lot of what they're proposing, and there are other items I'm dubious about...but overall positive. (There's a much longer interview that was interesting to watch. See below.)

One thing he emphasizes frequently is that he's looking forward to feedback on these proposed changes. So none of this is set in stone.


We'll never know, though, how much they listen. There was a point (I didn't quote, by zanshin zanshin) that mentions deliberately adding in a hated aspect, then removing it to further a point of listening to criticism. I don't know...I know this point is total speculation. It seemed like there were some really good aspects to the D&D Next playtest (at least in my opinion), such as the lores, the spell-point sorcerer, and critical hits to name a few of the things I would have bet money on would have made it in. I could be totally out of touch with the fan base - I probably am - but the skeptic in me feels like if there are aspects of the rules they'll double-down on regardless of feedback.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynocephaly widely spread idea

probably to make them less aligned with a modern representation of angels.
I think this might be the case. Tieflings take on a more "outcast" role/impression and seem to be quite popular with a lot of 5e fans. Aasimars, and how their represented, mean something totally different and something I feel WotC is trying to downplay or remove from their ruleset.

I think my frustration with D&D is that I have trouble getting people to play 13th Age even though it's a better game.

I mean obviously it being a better game is not a universal opinion but I keep seeing people trying to hack 5e for a play style 13th Age seems better suited for but they flat out refuse to try it because "not D&D".

I've also played 13th Age with people who basically admit it's superior at the table, but then want to go back to D&D anyway because what they really want is to feel a part of the wider gaming community and get excited over new product releases and I don't know how smaller games can really compete with that.
Agreed. I think there are a lot better games, mechanically speaking, than 5e. And same for enjoyment level. People get hung up on playing the newest edition of games, especially D&D. In my anecdotal experience, I am running a 3.5 D&D game, and have been for a year now. I have a player that vocally grumbled about going back to the more rules and more math of 3.5 and would much rather would play 5e. He makes mentions of 5e rules occasionally during sessions where (he feels) 5e handles the situation better. This is a guy that played in a 3.5 campaign with me from '06 to '13 and never (to my recollection) complained about how rules heavy or "math-y" the system was.

I think you made a good point about the community. People want to be part of the phenomena, the experience or community. I was, too, for a while, back in the 2e days. It was all AD&D, all the time and I wouldn't even look at another product. Then, for some reason, I picked up a GURPS book.

1) Backwards compatible is good (something T&T has had throughout its life)
2) The virtual tabletop looks fun - hopefully you wont have to acquire the mini's other than if you have the digital version of the appropriate book
3) The playtest package/feedback process gives people a chance to say what they don't like - and they did act on feedback from the D&D next process
4) Making the art depictions more diverse is a good thing IMO
5) I will evaluate what I actually need to get, given the 5.5e ness of the product
6) This was inevitable

Backwards combability is good, I agree. WotC can't take old products away from us but I get very much a frog in the slowly boiling water vibe here, as they slowly replace old products with newer versions that have newer rules. I know they have to do this, from a company standpoint - it'll only be confusing to have older products with older 5e rules in them beside the new 5.5 stuff. A new starter set replaces the old one, Multiverse of Monsters revisions of monsters and races, and Phandelver getting updated to 5.5e, as well as some of the older adventures (ToD for sure, and probably others in the coming months) going out of print; WotC is already making moves. But to many new folks this backwards combability won't matter much. They'll either be offloading their old books (furthers the point of being part of the D&D community), or they won't have access to older D&D products because they'll be mostly converted to 5.5e. This says nothing of 3rd party products, which will eventually have to make a switch to new formats (whether they want to or not) or move to a different system. I think it's way too early to consider the latter option viable.

The virtual tabletop did look cool. But I highly doubt that WotC (and I could be surprised here) won't try to monetize it. They might include Basic Rules monsters? I don't know. I do not think we'll get digital minis for free if we own the corresponding book.

I guess my opinion is starting to become is if this game had any other name than D&D, would it be more than a niche game that's main appeal was to a particular societal demographic? Or just one of many small press games out there that has a dedicated fanbase and plugs along making product? Some of those small press games are actually my favorites these days, so that's not a knock on small press. It's more of a question of this system's popularity outside of its name. I know I probably sound largely negative. For that, my apologies. I'm just very skeptical. 5e looked pretty good in playtest and what we got was, in my opinion, a little bit less because of some of the things they removed. 5.5 is only starting out "meh" for me, so I wonder what the end result will be. It's not my game of choice now so will it affect me much? Probably not.
 
Last edited:
It was a happy compromise that pleased everyone in not completely satisfactory ways. Yet it was flexible for each table to take it as their own for their desired strengths. And in that it is a success in the Compromise Edition in my eyes. (Yes, at my table we are playing Backgrounds way more strictly because Setting. When I want more Skill-Based modulating fun we'll play another system, maybe in the same setting, maybe not.)
That's why the background system is a strength, though; rather than a big list which will always be incomplete, you're free to add your own (Either on the fly or writing your own giant list), and because they're so mechanically simple (Two skills, two proficiencies, one perk from a list of pretty minor things and even they're mostly "you can find a bed for the night and some folk in your line of work") you can't create a broken one.

The only real potential issue is with languages, but you can always curate the list for your setting (Which you should be doing anyway).
 
My long time group of getting back together and we're going to run through Lost Mines and maybe do some stuff after. Then, I'm going to jump ship completely and probably go PF2E or OSE or maybe even O5R and ditch D&D altogether. WotC doesn't want me as a customer, they're actively gaslighting about previous editions and flat out lying in disclaimers and whatnot and don't give two fucks about the people that got them here.

So fine, there's plenty of other fish in the ttrpg sea, most of which offer a more satisfying meal than the bland microwaved dinner that WotC has to offer going forward.
 
My long time group of getting back together and we're going to run through Lost Mines and maybe do some stuff after. Then, I'm going to jump ship completely and probably go PF2E or OSE or maybe even O5R and ditch D&D altogether. WotC doesn't want me as a customer, they're actively gaslighting about previous editions and flat out lying in disclaimers and whatnot and don't give two fucks about the people that got them here.

So fine, there's plenty of other fish in the ttrpg sea, most of which offer a more satisfying meal than the bland microwaved dinner that WotC has to offer going forward.
I don't think WTOC is a monster, just a company.

But by all means, branch out. The same game all the time can get stale. There are a hundred flavors that broadly fit into OSR. Go out further and try Savage Worlds or a Powered by the Apocalypse game.

Have you tried Mythras?
 
My long time group of getting back together and we're going to run through Lost Mines and maybe do some stuff after. Then, I'm going to jump ship completely and probably go PF2E or OSE or maybe even O5R and ditch D&D altogether. WotC doesn't want me as a customer, they're actively gaslighting about previous editions and flat out lying in disclaimers and whatnot and don't give two fucks about the people that got them here.

So fine, there's plenty of other fish in the ttrpg sea, most of which offer a more satisfying meal than the bland microwaved dinner that WotC has to offer going forward.
Have you heard the word of our lord and savior Mythras? The authors have been quoted as saying we are quite happy with the ruleset and we don’t see a need for a new edition for a long time. Indeed, when they changed the name, they hardly even changed the text!
 
I don't think WTOC is a monster, just a company.

But by all means, branch out. The same game all the time can get stale. There are a hundred flavors that broadly fit into OSR. Go out further and try Savage Worlds or a Powered by the Apocalypse game.

Have you tried Mythras?
Man, just ninjaed!
 
Been there, done that. Don't take it too personally, as if you've been fired as a customer. Think of it as you're now a free agent! :thumbsup:

Compromise Edition is like reliable fast food in a strange land. Sometimes you feel like homestyle mysterious #5, sometimes old reliable nuke burgers and radium cola. :eat: Food poisoning rolls vs. sad boredom, sometimes both!, same as it ever was.
 
I think that art gives me an impression about the system.

Compare the art for Symbaroum 5e and D&D 5e (especially the newer art).

Night and day (almost literally). Everything is smooth and perfect, brightly colourful, hopeful and optimistic in 5e art. Most of heroes look confident, happy and without fear.

Which is what the majority of people WANT to be, I get that! The current world sucks. War, recession, racism etc... Not fun. Escapism is fine.

But there are obviously different forms of escapism. Some folks (like my players and I) really enjoy dramatic, over the top tragedy mixed with success. While you can do that sort of thing with ANY game system, the art direction and presentation of 5e doesn't inspire me to do so.

TO each their own, but it is amazing how much D&D "feels" kind of bland to me, despite the wonder and fantasy oozing out of every pore. A forgotten ruin full of traps and undead seems less... daunting if the party are all multicolored half-angels and devils with at-will spells that replicate Xmen powers.
 
Honestly, it isn't my cup of tea. I became very disillusioned with 5e by running thousands of hours of it. But I'm not a nonbinary teenager with blue hair so I'm not really the target market. The reality of the roleplaying industry since the dawn of time has been that D&D sucks, there are much better games, but nobody is playing them.
 
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top